Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-3139-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <e6509e106251c10a9f65bf5e520911cda26060a6.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 01/24] locking/local_lock: Introduce guard
 definition for local_lock.
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>, Boqun Feng
 <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,  Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>, Eric
 Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>, Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>, Peter
 Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:16:49 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20231215171020.687342-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
References: <20231215171020.687342-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
	 <20231215171020.687342-2-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 18:07 +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> Introduce lock guard definition for local_lock_t. There are no users
> yet.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
> ---
>  include/linux/local_lock.h | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>=20
> diff --git a/include/linux/local_lock.h b/include/linux/local_lock.h
> index e55010fa73296..706c4b65d9449 100644
> --- a/include/linux/local_lock.h
> +++ b/include/linux/local_lock.h
> @@ -51,4 +51,15 @@
>  #define local_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags)			\
>  	__local_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags)
> =20
> +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(local_lock, local_lock_t,
> +		    local_lock(_T->lock),
> +		    local_unlock(_T->lock))
> +DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(local_lock_irq, local_lock_t,
> +		    local_lock_irq(_T->lock),
> +		    local_unlock_irq(_T->lock))

DEFINE_GUARD should fit for the 2 above, right?

Cheers,

Paolo